Skip to main content

another tennis match with a slightly suspicious result? UPDATED



Make up your own mind on this one. Note this picture is the Inverse Axis graph, one showing % chance of winning.

Betfair have delayed settlement of this match, pending an investigation and discussion with the ATP I assume.

Antonio Veic, a player I had honestly never heard of before, started this match at a price of around 5.5 (18% winning chance). Guillermo Canas, a player nearing the end of his career and with two previous suspensions for taking banned substances was the heavy favourite, around 1.2.

Now from the graph, you'd think Veic won in straight sets. He didn't, he actually lost the first set, yet kept on shortening in price (increasing in percentage chance of winning).

Expect this one to be in the papers and dragging tennis back into the gutter again.

Without seeing the match, it's hard to hang the bloke. He may have rolled an ankle and battled hard to win the first set despite really struggling. But any betting forum will tell you this one looks mighty fishy.

UPDATE - The HeraldSun has picked up on the story here.

There is a photo of Canas receiving treatment on his shoulder in this Australian forum, but no indication of exactly when the timeout was taken.

FINAL UPDATE - Betfair, I assume with the assistance of the ATP, have made a decision.

PBZ Zagreb Indoors Tennis Tournament – Canas v Veic first round match settlement.
We have investigated the markets offered on the match between Canas and Veic at the PBZ Indoors in Croatia. After detailed analysis we are satisfied the market reflected the event and in accordance with our terms and conditions the market will be settled shortly.


No doubt betting forums around the globe will be alive with conspiracy theories about this one....
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous2 February 2009 at 23:43

    A courtside observer initially dismissed concerns as being "BS" and simply due to those watching being aware of an injury to Canas BUT this was before he was aware of the betting patterns. When I explained the betting patterns as reflected in the odds he said they were "insane".

    I reported "unusual betting activity" BEFORE the match started (on www.tennisinsight.com) AND to Betfair while Canas was WINNING during the first set - AND a second time when he went a break up in the second.

    It is self-evident that Betfair SHOULD void these bets. The ATP should support them in reaching that conclusion and NOT PRETEND - to avoid unwelcome controversy - it was simply due to "injury".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous3 February 2009 at 00:50

    The odds on Canas went from 1.17 an hour before the match to 1.29 on commencement to 8.2 when he was ONE SET UP and 1-2 ON SERVE in the second set.

    These are not exceptional figures but fully representative of the betting trends throughout the match.

    A courtside observer said they were NOT explained by Canas' shoulder 'injury'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. amorphous3 February 2009 at 03:40

    Sopot Part 2!!!

    I watched the prices/scores move throughout the match, and generally assumed the scoreboard had the players round the wrong way.

    It soon became apparent something more dubious was taking place.

    Its hard to say just what happened...it could just be the courtsiders taking advantage of a situation, causing a massive, massive market overreaction.

    But it stinks!!
    ...and the more I read, the more suspicious it seems.


    For the integrity of tennis as a sport and for betting, nothing less than a Betfair void and full ATP investigation is required.

    I suspect Betfair will quietly settle, and the ATP will continue to bury their collective heads in the sand.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3 February 2009 at 09:45

    Veic traded at 1.07 whilst being a set and a break down... even if Canas only had one arm you'd expect the odds to be a little higher!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scott3 February 2009 at 14:45

    Not sure about the break of serve (I didn't catch this until late), but when your serving shoulder is gone, it's very hard to win anything.

    I'm trying to keep an open mind on this - innocent until proven guilty, and I'd rather not have to deal with defamation lawyers.

    The volume traded on the match wasn't that high considering the circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  6. dickie20 February 2009 at 08:26

    I was a courtsider at the match. Canas had got to 1.8, whilst a break up before he asked to see the trainer. Further I watched the points he was losing, some of his second faults ended nearer the baseline than the service line, and he never tried to hit any winners, always passing the ball over to Veic, it would have been more subtle had veic not kept hitting the net forcing Canas to play even worse to make doubly sure that he lost.
    SOmething that no one else has pointed out, was at the start of the third set the trainer came out, but only to talk to Canas, it struck me totally as we have all the money on, you had better make sure you lose, rather than any form of treatment.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur
14 comments
Read more

Spot-fixing - you will never, ever be able to stop it

According to this report , IPL tournaments so far have been rife with spot-fixing - that is fixing minor elements of the game - runs in a single over, number of wides bowled etc. The curious part of that article is that the Income Tax department are supposed to have found these crimes. What idiot would be stupid enough to put down 'big wad of cash handed to me by bookie' as a source of income? Backhanders for sportsmen, particularly in a celebrity- and cricket-obsessed culture like India are not rare. They could come from anything like turning up to open someone's new business (not a sponsor, but a 'friend of a friend' arrangement), to being a guest at some devoted fan's dinner party etc. The opportunities are always there, and there will always be people trying to become friends with players and their entourage - that is human nature. This form of match-fixing (and it's not really fixing a match, just a minor element of it) is very hard to prove, but also,
Post a Comment
Read more

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...
33 comments
Read more